DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/26/2025 in RCE has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 12/26/2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 4-7, 10-13, & 16-18 remain pending. Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 13, & 16 have been amended. Claims 2-3, 8-9, & 14-15 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 15 lines 12 to page 16 line 2, filed 12/26/2025, with respect to 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1-6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections due to 35 U.S.C. § 101 step 1 of claims 1-6 has been withdrawn (analysis continues to steps 2A & 2B of the 101 analysis below).
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 16 lines 3 to page 16 line 11, filed 12/26/2025, with respect to 35 USC 112(a) rejections of claims 2-3, 8-9, & 14-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections due to 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) of claims 2-3, 8-9, & 14-15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 16 lines 12 to page 17 line 22, filed 12/26/2025, with respect to Drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of Drawings has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 18 line 1 to page 19 line 8, filed 12/26/2025, with respect to 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 7, & 13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 18 line 12-13):
“In response, Applicant respectfully asserts that antecedent basis for the term “the estimated time” is already provided, i.e., limitation of claim 1 as recited below:”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
The limitation of “estimating, by the PCRES, via the one or more hardware processors, a time for a next pressure change” is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the estimated time” at least because 1) this would be sufficient antecedent basis for the more specific term “the estimated time for a pressure change” and 2) there is at least another element within the claim(s) which could be referred to by the term “the estimated time”; “estimated maximum usage limit” could also be “the estimated time” (not sufficient antecedent basis for this term either but possibly what is being referred to).
Note: the first instance of an element should be in the form “a [unique descriptive terminology]” and successive references to that element should be in the form “the [unique descriptive terminology]” where [unique descriptive terminology] is the same throughout the claims. This is necessary because similarly phrased elements can be patentably distinct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) and MPEP 2106.04(II)(A), respectively.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-13, & 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “a method for estimating pressure change requirements for a rotary cutter” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A – Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The Claim recites:
“estimating, by the PCRES via the one or more hardware processors, a minimum usage limit and a maximum usage limit for the rotary cutter at the real-time pressure value based on the historical rotary cutter usage data and the real-time pressure value using a first trained model”
“upon determining that the minimum usage limit has reached for the rotary cutter, estimating, by the PCRES via the one or more hardware processors, a time for a next pressure of the rotary cutter using a second trained model, wherein the one or more physical parameters are determined based on the real-time rotary cutter usage data, wherein estimating the time for the next pressure change in accordance with the one or more physical parameters of the rotary cutter using the second trained model comprises”
“pre-processing, by the PCRES via the one or more hardware processors, the historical data associated with each rotary cutter to obtain pre-processed historical data for the rotary cutter, wherein the historical data facilitates to understand underlying trends signifying loss of cutting property of each rotary cutter of the plurality of rotary cutters, requiring change in pressure”
“automatically identifying, by the PCRES via the one or more hardware processors, events corresponding to change in the pressure;”
“extracting, by the PCRES via the one or more hardware processors, historical data of every equi-pressure window separately;”
“and performing, by the PCRES via the one or more hardware processors, pressure wise segregation of the pre-processed historical data for a complete cycle of each rotary cutter with respect to multi-pressure values to obtain segregated data for the rotary cutter;”
“comparing, by the PCRES via the one or more hardware processors, the estimated time for the next pressure change with the estimated maximum usage limit for the rotary cutter;”
Explanation:
Rule:
See 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
&
“It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.”
Analysis:
The estimating, determining, pre-processing, identifying, extracting, performing, & comparing are either within the judicial exception abstract idea category of mental processes or mathematical concepts. The generality of these limitations would monopolize the judicial exception(s) over the field of use or technological environment.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does “recite an abstract idea”.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites:
“receiving, by a pressure change requirement estimation system (PCRES) via one or more hardware processors, (a) historical rotary cutter usage data associated with [[a]] the rotary cutter,(b) a real-time pressure value applied on the rotary cutter, and (c) historical data associated with each rotary cutter of a plurality of rotary cutters, wherein the historical rotary cutter usage data comprise discrete variables signifying object, such as regrinding information, number of times the rotary cutter been used, a manufacturer information;”
“monitoring, by the PCRES via the one or more hardware processors, real-time rotary cutter usage data to determine whether the minimum usage limit has reached for the rotary cutter, wherein the real-time rotary cutter usage data is received in real-time from a machine comprising the rotary cutter, wherein the real-time rotary cutter usage data is collected in a real-time from one or more sensors that are installed in the machine, wherein the one or more sensors collects one or more physical parameters such as current and speed;”
“and displaying, by the PCRES via the one or more hardware processors, a message to a user of the machine based on the comparison, wherein when the estimated time is identified to be crossing a pre-defined threshold, a flag to change the rotary cutter pressure is raised, wherein the message comprises a notification to change the pressure applied on the rotary cutter within the estimated time.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, … An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole”
Analysis:
Receiving, and monitoring data is extra solution activity (pre-solution) and is necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s).
Displaying a message to the user is extra solution activity (post-solution) and is necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not “recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(d): “2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination.”
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).”
Analysis:
The elements and limitations as listed in step 2A Prong 2 (above) are necessary data gathering and outputting. The claimed invention must gather data and must output data to a user to be applied. Without these limitations (whether explicit or implied) there would be no working invention.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not “recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception”
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “The method” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A – Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
The Claim additionally recites:
“estimating, by the PCRES via the one or more hardware processors, the minimum usage limit and the maximum usage limit for the rotary cutter at the real-time pressure value based on the historical rotary cutter usage data and the real-time pressure value using the first trained model”
“identifying, by the PCRES via the one or more hardware processors, one or more events on which a pressure applied to the rotary cutter is changed based on the historical rotary cutter usage data, wherein each event of the one or more events is associated with a pressure value;”
“defining, by the PCRES via the one or more hardware processors, usage of the rotary cutter for each event of the one or more events, wherein the usage of an event includes time details for which the rotary cutter is working at a respective pressure value;”
“generating, by the PCRES via the one or more hardware processors, a statistical range defining a minimum limit and a maximum limit of the usage of the rotary cutter at each event of the one or more events;”
“and estimating, by the PCRES via the one or more hardware processors, the minimum usage limit and the maximum usage limit for the rotary cutter at the real-time pressure value based on the statistical range and the real-time pressure value.”
Explanation:
These limitations are further directed towards judicial exceptions.
Therefore, the claim does “recite an abstract idea”.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional limitations/elements beyond those listed in step 2A prong One.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional limitations/elements beyond those listed in step 2A prong One.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “The method” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A – Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
The Claim additionally recites:
“determining, by the PCRES via the one or more hardware processors, upper limit confidence interval and lower limit confidence interval for each instance of each rotary cutter of the plurality of rotary cutters based on the segregated data obtained for the rotary cutter, and for each instance of the rotary cutter based on the real-time rotary cutter usage data using a statistical technique;”
“creating, by the PCRES via the one or more hardware processors, a polygon for each rotary cutter of the plurality of rotary cutters to create a library of polygons and a rotary cutter polygon for the rotary cutter using a polygon building algorithm, wherein the polygon for each rotary cutter of the plurality of rotary cutters and the rotary cutter is created based on the upper limit confidence interval and the lower limit confidence interval determined for the rotary cutter;”
“comparing, by the PCRES via the one or more hardware processors, the rotary cutter polygon with each polygon present in the library of polygons to obtain a similarity score for the respective polygon;”
“selecting, by the PCRES via the one or more hardware processors, at least one polygon from the library of polygons based on the similarity score;”
“and estimating, by the PCRES via one or more hardware processors, the time for the next pressure change based on the pre-processed historical data associated with the at least one selected polygon.”
Explanation:
Thes limitations are further directed towards judicial exceptions of either mathematical concepts or mental processes.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim additionally recites:
“accessing, the PCRES via the one or more hardware processors, the pre-processed historical data associated with the at least one selected polygon;”
Explanation:
This limitation is directed towards the extra solution activity of data gathering.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional limitations/elements beyond those listed in step 2A prong One & step 2A prong Two.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “The method” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A – Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 5 and thereby from claim 1.
The Claim additionally recites:
“creating, by the PCRES via the one or more hardware processors, the polygon for each rotary cutter of the plurality of rotary cutters to create the library of polygons using a polygon building algorithm comprises:”
“connecting, by the PCRES via the one or more hardware processors, the upper confidence interval and the lower limit confidence interval determined for each rotary cutter in time instance wise manner to obtain one or more connected upper limit confidence intervals and one or more connected lower limit confidence intervals for each rotary cutter;”
“and enclosing, by the PCRES via the one or more hardware processors, the one or more connected upper limit confidence intervals and the one or more connected lower limit confidence intervals obtained for each rotary cutter to create the polygon for rotary cutter.”
Explanation:
Thes limitations are further directed towards judicial exceptions of either mathematical concepts or mental processes.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional limitations/elements beyond those listed in step 2A – Prong One.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional limitations/elements beyond those listed in step 2A – Prong One.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claims 7, 10-13, & 16-18 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1, & 4-6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3, 8-9, & 14-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding “Lack of antecedent basis in the claims”:
Claim 1 & 7 & 13 in lines 37 and 40 and 42-43 & lines 37 and 40 and 42 & lines 36 and 39 and 41 (respectively) recites the limitation "the estimated time". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim recites “estimating … minimum usage limit” & “a maximum usage limit” as well as “estimating the time for the next pressure change” which are all time values and could therefore be referred to as “the estimated time”. There would be sufficient antecedent basis for “the estimated time for the next pressure change”.
Claims 4-6 in line 1 (each claim) recites the limitation "the method of claim 1[5]". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are multiple elements within claim 1 which could be referred to by “the method of claim 1”; possibilities include “A method for estimating pressure change requirements for a rotary cutter” & “receiving, by a pressure change requirement estimation system” & “estimating, by the PCRES via the one or more hardware processors”, etc.,. There would be sufficient antecedent basis for “The method for estimating pressure change requirements for a rotary cutter of claim 1”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12564911 B2 "Tool State Learning Device, Tool State Estimation Device, Control Device, Tool State Learning Method, And Tool State Estimation Method" (Inagaki) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1-20: "Tool State Estimation Device".
US 12330329 B2 "Rotary Die Cutting Device And Method For Setting A Gap Dimension Of A Gap Between A Die Cutting Cylinder And A Counter Pressure Cylinder Of The Rotary Die Cutting Device" (Schomber) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858